- Jun 29, 2020
- 36 min read

20 Times When Christopher Hitchens Hitchslapped Someone

Compilations of Hitchens owning and destroying people in debates and interviews

"If you're a religious apologist invited to debate Christopher Hitchens, decline." - Richard Dawkins

The word "Hitchslap" is defined as something that occurs when someone was completely owned and someone's arguments were totally eviscerated by Christopher Hitchens, and it can be delivered both in a debate and in writing. Hitchslaps can also be one-liners or very long speeches, that is so brutal to the point that anyone who was receiving it will be convicted to a lifetime embarrassment. Setting aside all of the hyperboles, Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was an Anglo-American journalist, author, polemicist, and one of the most famous atheists/antitheists of all time. He was undeniably one of the greatest orators and debaters in, perhaps, all of human history, and he was a living (well, he's now dead for almost a decade) nightmare to his religious and political opponents.

Here are the top 20 legendary Hitchslaps:

20. Exposing Pope John Paul II

Christopher Hitchens was invited to be interviewed on CNBC by Dennis Miller on 2005 regarding about the recent death of the late Pope John Paul II, and during the interview, Hitchens mentioned the Pope's association with clergy pedophilia cover-up, his relationship with Saddam Hussein's former adviser, and other scandals of the Catholic Church. Miller then said that Hitchens must be right about his criticisms about the Catholic Church or else, he will go to hell. Hitchens gave him a Hitchslap after that.

Hitchens: Well, I….I completely ….I completely second those who were just applauding, but unfortunately, it didn’t break us out when he found out, he knew that Cardinal Bernard Law was moving around sadistic predators, concealing their activities from the police, which it was his job to disclose, inflicting them on parishes, where he know they would attack again, and covering up for them. This is one of the gravest crimes of the county. This is a sort of crime that would make an atheist fear he was going to go to hell. It’s the one thing no one can tolerate. A Cardinal Law, who should be facing trial in Boston, is instead a fugitive from justice in Rome, given a special sinecure and a place of refuge by His Holiness, the Pope. He can’t get out of that, that’s wickedness. It’s also my view of wickedness to say that condoms are more nasty and more dangerous than the AIDS virus, which was the Pope’s official position. It’s lucky for him that he isn’t going to face judgment, because if he did, he’d have a lot of people’s deaths on his conscience, as well as the rape and torture of a lot of children. These are things I wouldn’t want to have to go to my grave with, even if I was sure there was no afterlife, and no one will say this this week. It’s all piety, it’s all Pope all the time. And what about, what do you say, man of peace, this is a guy who invited Saddam Hussein’s chief henchmen to the Vatican, a couple of weeks before Saddam was removed and formed on him, and called him a man of peace. That’s Tariq Haziz, another wanted torturer, and mass murderer. This is a pretty grim record. Dennis Miller: Well, Chris, you better hope so, you’re going to hell if not. Hitchens: Well, all the most amusing people seem to be bound the same way.

19. "Because the handiwork of God is such garbage"

During his debate with Reverend Al Sharpton regarding the question "Is God great?" on 2007, Hitchens slammed the hypocrisy of Jews and Christians who believes in Intelligent Design but at the same time, practice circumcision, which according to him, undermines the whole Design Argument.

Hitchens: I do not think that any person looking at a newborn baby would think, "How wonderful, what a gift. Now let's start sewing away his genitalia with a sharp stone." Who would give them that idea, if not the godly? And what kind of Argument from Design is this? "Babies are not born beautiful, they're ugly, they need to be sewn a bit! Because the handiwork of God is such garbage!"

18. Hitchens owning Todd Friel

In his radio interview with Christian apologist Todd Friel in Wretched Radio on 2009, Hitchens was asked if he believes that God had a right for his life since he provided everything for him. Being a known freethinker who believes in person's individuality, he obviously answered "No" since he didn't recognize the right of anyone to own his life. Then Friel asked him if there's something wrong with ownership, and Hitch brought up the issue of Biblical slavery. Isn't it ironic that Hitch was against the ownership of other people and yet he owned Todd at the same time?

Todd Friel: Do you believe that that God, if he's provided everything for you, has rights on your life? Hitchens: No. Friel: Because? Hitchens: Why should he? What gives him his right? Friel: Because he owns you. He's created everything for you. He's kept you alive. Hitchens: Well, I don't want to be owned. I don't want to be owned and I don't recognize anyone's right to own me. Friel: So, ownership is a bad thing? Hitchens: Of people, yes. Friel: Oh, okay. Hitchens: It'd been widely considered...I mean, I know... I know the Bible does call for slavery as it calls for genocide, but that doesn't make it right.

17. Slamming Jesus

Sometimes, a single sentence is just what it takes to humiliate someone's argument. On 2008, Christian apologist Frank Turek debated Christopher Hitchens with the question "Does God exists?" While Turek explained why we are fallen human beings and Jesus needs to come down to Earth, Hitch interrupted him with a one-liner.

Frank Turek: ...and that's why Christ had to come because we are fallen human beings. Hitchens: And has to come again, because he didn't get it right the first time.

16. Criticizing religious charity as argument for the existence of God

During his debate with Jewish conservative leader, Rabbi David Wolpe on 2010, Hitchens pointed out the noticeable fetish of Catholics and other religious groups to bring up religious charity and their other good deeds as a red herring that doesn't have to do on the issue of whether God exists or not. Wolpe noticed that Hitchens makes sense while the audience was clapping at him, and shouted, "Don't applaud that!" And since then, Wolpe was just get hitchslapped badly.

Hitchens: It's very impressive to me... David Wolpe: Oh, okay, good... Hitchens: ....because it often... it's very often the first thing when if we debate with Catholics, they always change the subject to charity right away. With Jews, it's usually a little later... Wolpe: (interrupts) You just said that they... Hitchens: (interrupts)...and with Muslims...and with Muslims...and with Muslims, it's all the time. Because, what...what else can ...they don't want to defend their faith... Wolpe: (interrupts) But you've just said the opposite! You've just said.... Hitchens: ....they don't want you to even believe that (...interruption...) to defend their faith, they don't want to say they don't...if you are easy to worry about redemption, salvation, but look at the good work that we've [done]. But if you talk to the Mormons, they'll say, you should...you may not think much of Joseph Smith, and I say, you got that right. But, boy, you...you should see our missionaries in Peru... Moderator: (interrupts) The government will do the work, if religion does not... Hitchens: This is...excuse me, what...what has this got to do with the existence of God or the validity of religious claims? It has nothing to do with it, so why introduce it as a time-wasting tactic? (audience applauded) Wolpe: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,wait...no, don't applaud that! Hitchens: ....nothing to do with it! Wolpe:....he's just...(laughs)

15. "Ask Kim Jong-Il, he has a different opinion"

In the same radio interview with Todd Friel (that I mentioned in number 18), Hitchens answered him in a question about the existence of God that heaven is like a celestial North Korea where God is the eternal supervisor that watches everyone all the time, like in George Orwell's 1984 dystopia. But Friel said to Hitchens that he doesn't think that God was Kim-Jong-Il, and Hitchens replied that the North Korean dictator thinks that he's a god.

Todd Friel: So, what if God actually exists, sir, would he not have been good to you? Hitchens: No. Uhh...he wouldn't. Because if...if that were true, it would mean that I have an eternal supervising parent, who would never die and let me get on with my life, never let me grow up, keep me under surveillance... Friel: But you have, sir... Hitchens: ....and supervision every minute of my life... Friel: But you have... Hitchens:...and constantly asked me to be thanking him and praising him... Friel: Yeah, yeah, that wasn't part of... Hitchens: I think that it wold be like living in North Korea, I think it'd be a horrible outcome. Friel: Well, not sure that...that God is Kim Jong-Il, but what if what I said is true..... Hitchens: (interrupts) Well, ask Kim Jong-Il, he has a different opinion.

14. Hitchslapping a Muslim woman

Hitchens was one of the panelists in the show Q & A in Australia on 2009, when a Muslim woman in the audience claimed that the Qur'an gave "a lot of rights" for women, and she also claimed that there are also rights for women in Iran (since she also said that she was Iranian). Hitchens then asked her if she can choose not to wear a hijab and sit next to young men in Iran, and then the Muslim women seemed to be aggravated afterwards.

Moderator: Well, actually, look, you've had your head for a while. I'm gonna take your question, lady in the front there. Muslim woman: Look, my one question is basically on my one comment, our passing comment, is that, so many times you've brought up women in Islam. I just like to correct that I've read the Quran and all Muslim scholars would agree with me that Islam gives women a lot of rights. We over and over give Islam, women in Islam through the Quran, I may not say it, through individual, to preach the religion, but Islam through the Quran gives women a lots of rights, and I need that to be heard. I need that to have everyone to understand and hear that where I am a young Muslim woman myself. I sit before you, I have a voice, and I can speak to you, and I can look you in the eye, and I do have my rights. And when I go to Iran, I'm actually an Iranian as well, so when I go to Iran, I also have my rights. I need it to be heard that the Quran...the Quran, Allah, this one Allah gives us our rights. And the people, individuals in countries, and people who represent our religion, may not and they may do the wrong thing to and sort of stand in front and show us religion and preach else religion, but Islam does. Moderator: Alright, we're gonna take that as a comment, a very.....(inaudible voice) Hitchens: No, they were not, they were not gonna say who is it going. I can...I can see you face, I can see your hair, and I can see you sitting in an audience with young gentlemen. Don't you tell me you can do any of that in Iran. Muslim woman: I can though! Hitchens: No, you can't. Muslim woman: Yes, I can! Hitchens: No, you cannot! Muslim woman: I can! In Iran...in Iran...in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where I have veil, my hair would be out.... Hitchens: I can see your hair. Muslim woman: ....my hair would be out, because my veil would be little, my hair would be, uhh... maybe covered a little bit, but just like in the Bible, in the letters to the Corinthians, it says to cover your hair to be modest! Hitchens: Oh, come one.....no, no, it's a shame she spoil what would gonna be a perfectly good statement. Moderator: (tries to lower down the tension of the situation) Muslim woman: (keeps ranting) Hitchens: If you say you have....If you say you have....you insult...you insult your sisters in Tehran who have been beaten... Muslim woman: (keeps ranting) Hitchens: ....who have been beaten and raped everyday when you say that they have their rights in Islamic Republic. It's an insult to the women of Iran. Muslim woman: (keeps ranting)

13. Hitchens on Cherrypicked Morality of Some Religious People

In a three versus three debate regarding the question "Would we'd be better off without religion?" between religion critics (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and AC Grayling) and religion defenders (Baroness Julia Neuberger, Roger Scruton, and Nigel Spivey) on 2007, Hitchens was asked by the moderator Joan Bakewell about a Jew that considers religion as "a tone of living, a framework, and about self-restraint." Hitchens was then gave her a perfectly-made response.

Joan Bakewell: The question about the line-drawing Jew, the practice of religion being about the tone of living, a framework, and about self-restraint. Hitchens: Well that’s dead easy, just like the rabbi of just now, his religion is man-made too. He decides what he’d like to believe. It’s a la carte. He says, “Shouldn’t my children be taught, what was it, self-restraint, responsibility, care for others, and so on? I don’t believe in the rest of it, I don’t believe in the prophets, I don’t believe in the mountaintop, I don’t believe in the revelation.” Well, nor should you. But how dare you suggest to us that we couldn’t teach our children self-restraint, and respect for other, and the Golden Rule? How dare you?

12. Why Hitler was Not an Atheist and the Nazi Germany was a Christian State

On his debate with Larry Taunton on 2010 in Fixed Point Foundation, Hitchens rebutted the popular Christian lie that Adolf Hitler was an atheist, and used Darwinism as one of the core principles of the Nazi Party, a misconception that was still continued to be perpetrated up to this day, in order to discredit atheism as a socio-political and moral ideology that was used by the brutal dictators of the 20th century.

Hitchens: Atheism by itself is, of course, not a moral position or political of any kind. It simply is the refusal in a supernatural dimension. For you to say Nazism, that it was the implementation of the work of Charles Darwin, is a filthy slander, undeserving of you and an insult to this audience. Darwin’s thought was not taught in Germany. Darwinism wasn’t derived in Germany, along with every other form of unbelief. All the great modern atheist thinkers, Darwin, Einstein, and Freud were alike despised by the National Socialist regime. Now, just to take the notorious of the 20th century totalitarianism, the most finished example, the most perfected one, the most ruthless and refined one, that of National Socialism, the one that fortunately allowed the escaped of all these great atheist thinkers and many others to the United States, country of separation of church and state that gave them welcome. If it’s an atheistic regime, then how come that in the first chapter of Mein Kampf, Hitler says he’s doing God’s work and executing God’s will in destroying the Jewish people? How come the Fuhrer oath that every officer of the party and the army had to take, making Hitler into a minor God, begins “I swear in the name of Almighty God, my loyalty to the Fuhrer”? How come that on the belt buckle of every Nazi soldier, it says “Gott mit uns” “God on our side”? How come that the first treaty made by the National Socialist dictatorship, the very first, is with the Vatican, exchanging political control of Germany for Catholic control of German education? How come that the churches celebrated the birthday of the Fuhrer every day, every year, I mean, on that day, until democracy put an end to this filthy quasi-religious, superstitious, barbarous, reactionary system? Again, this is not a difference of emphasis between us to suggest that there’s something fascistic about me and my beliefs is something I won’t here said, and you shouldn’t believe. Thank you.

11. Humiliating Sean Hannity

In one of his many interviews with the Christian conservative journalist and news anchor Sean Hannity in Fox News, Hitchens was confronted by Hannity by strawmanning his non-belief, and stating a well-fed misconception that it takes more faith to be an atheist than to be a believer. Hitchens then put the smug and arrogant news anchor in his place.

Sean Hannity: To be an atheist, you have to believe that it is possible, which I think is a far greater leap of faith, that’s something that can be created out of nothing, when you…when you look at the majesty and sophistication, and the intricacy of the universe that we do know and comprehend. You have to believe that somehow that this energy could have existed on its own, and I do not believe that is. That to me is a leap of faith. Hitchens: You…you give me the awful impression of, hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn’t read any of the arguments against your position ever.

10. "Not imposed?"

During his 2007 debate with Oxford University professor Alister McGrath, a former atheist who was converted to Christianity, Hitchens flawlessly rebutted McGrath's claim that Christianity is not being forced to people, but only offered.

Alister McGrath: It is about the possibility of transformation being offered to me but not being imposed upon me. And for me, that is about a god who offers but does not demand, and I respond to him in this way, and I find that to be very good summary what the Christian faith is trying to say, about a god who offers but does not impose, and again those of you who often live New Testament will think of the imagery of Revelation chapter 3, which speaks of Christ knocking on the door and asking us to open but leaving that action up…open to us. Moderator: Uhmm, okay, Mr. Hitchens? Hitchens: “Not imposed”? Did you really say, “not imposed”? What if you reject this offer? What are you told by what you have been told over centuries by Christians, if you reject this offer, that took place by means of a torture to death of a human being, that you didn’t want and should have prevented, if you could. What if you reject the offer or if you refuse? If you accept it, you have an eternal life and all of your sins are forgiven. “Oh great!” What a horrible way to abolish your responsibility and get your own bliss. I don’t want it. “Oh you don’t? Well then you go to hell!” This is not imposed? This hasn’t been preached to children by gruesome elderly virgins with back by force for centuries? This hasn’t poisoned whole societies? No! Of course, it’s not voluntary! The Pope of Rome is like, oh the Bishop of Rome, Mr. Ratzinger has recently said, “Actually it’s worse than that. Only my version of Christianity will get you salvation, and there is only one way.” I say it in Georgetown, is anyone, you presumably don’t believe that because you’re an Anglican, but on what basis do you tell the Pope that he’s a heretic? Once you grant this stuff, once you start with this white noise chat about Redemption, where it is gonna end? Of course, there’s nothing voluntary about it. And I must say, the book of Revelation seems one of the less voluntary text of them. And what all it does is look forward gleefully to Apocalypse. The passing away of this vale of tears and the ultimate destruction. This is morality? I don’t think so.

9. "What an incredibly stupid question"

During a question and answer session in his debate with Al Sharpton, an audience member, who claims to be "an atheist who defends religion" asked Hitchens on how can he justify taking away religion, something that means to the majority of Americans, and replace it with something that means only to the minority. After that, the audience member tasted what it feels like to be hitchslapped.

Audience Member: Hi, uhmm…first of all, I just want to say, I’m writing a book and it’s called “An Atheist Defends Religion: Why Religion Succeeds and Atheism Fails.” I’m an atheist, but I defend religion, and my question is… Moderator: Really splitting the difference here, huh? Audience Member: I know, I know, I just lost, I’m sorry, I’m sorry. Well, my question is to Christopher, how you can justify why take something away from people, from 95, that gives meaning to 95% of the American people and replace it with something that gives meaning to just 5% of the American people? Hitchens: Ha! Well, uhmm…what an incredibly stupid question. First…first, I’ve said repeatedly that this stuff cannot be taken from people, it is their favorite toy and it will remain so as long, as Freud said in “The Future of Illusion,” will remain that way as long as we’re afraid of death. And hopefully a problem which is I think likely to be quite a long time. Second, I hope I’ve made it clear, that I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves, and so on and share them with other people who come around and play with the toys, so that’s absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys, okay? I will not play with the toys. Don’t bring the toys to my house, don’t say my children must play with these toys, don’t say my toys might be a condom, here we go again. I’m not allowed by their toys, I’m not gonna have any of that. Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear? Have I got that across? Thank you.

8. "Don't waste my time, it's bullshit"

During his question and answer with Rabbi David Wolpe, a Muslim from audience asked Hitchens why he chose the words "God is Not Great" as his controversial title instead of other titles, which according to the the audience member, is "the literal negation of Allahu Akbar" (the Islamic term for "God is great"). Before he answered the question, Hitchens then gave a hitchslap to the Islamic faith as a whole, dismissing it as the most nonsensical and dangerous religion that is not worthy of his time.

Moderator: Con we do more? Yes? Audience Member: Uhmm, Mr. Hitchens, you are likely the world’s most charming, rougish, and enlightened atheist, and I love you for that, but as a Sufi Muslim, I am very ruffled by the title of your book. Of all the titles that you likely had at your disposal, did you have to settle for the literal negation of “Allahu Akbar”? Hitchens: Yes. I thought it, thank you. Moderator: Thank you for that question Thank you. It’s a very good question, I’m glad I wanna address, why? Hitchens: As I’ve said, I think that all religions are wrong in the same way in that they privilege faith over…over reason, but they are not all equally bad in the same way all the time. I mean, if I’ve been writing in the 1930s, I would certainly have said that the Catholic Church was the most dangerous religion in the world because of its open alliance with fascism and antisemitism, which the damage from that, our culture has never recovered from and never will. But at the moment, it’s very clear to me that the most toxic form of religion takes is the Islamic form. The horrible idea of wanting to end up with Sharia, with a religion govern state, a state of religious law, and the best means of getting there is jihad, holy war, and that Muslims have a special right to feel aggrieved enough to demand this, I think it is absolute, obscene wickedness, and I think their religion is nonsense….. Moderator: The entire…in its entirety? Hitchens: In its entirety. God speaks to some illiterate merchant warlord in Arabia, and he’d able to write this down perfectly, and it contains the answer to all. Don’t waste my time, it’s bullshit. Moderator: But you’re saying the same thing about….. Hitchens: Also that God speaks, that Archangel Gabriel speaks only in Arabic… Wolpe: (To the Muslim audience member) I just want to say, in retrospect, you are very civil, I don’t know what I was thinking. Hitchens: No, this is…this is… Moderator: Is this the same characterization for all religion? Hitchens: Well, actually no, because, remember Islam makes one special claim for itself. All religions claim to be revealed truth, that they were all founded by divine revelation, but Islam dangerously says, “Ours is the last and final one. There can’t be any more after this. This is God’s last word.” Now, that’s straight away a temptation to violence and intolerance, and if you note, it’s a temptation they seem quite willing to fulfill for. All had another motive, in other words which this. If you remember Dick Gregory, the older comrades here will, great black comedian and civil rights activist, when he came to write his memoir, he called it “nigger.” It upset a lot of people, including his old mum, who called him and said, “Why are you doing this?” He says, “Mama, there’ll be time you here that word again, they’re selling my book.” So, every Allahu Akbar reminds people, that we’re in a very serious struggle, we’re very depraved religion, and their (undeciphered words)… Moderator: ….your Sufi friend, you give him no quarter? Hitchens: Look, he believes in the prophecies of Muhammad. I’m sorry to say, I think he’s been, at best, conned.

7. "We gotta grow out of this stuff, you know"

Hitchens debated Oxford professor John Lennox about the existence of God on 2008, and although overall Lennox seemed to be the winner of whole debate (as Hitchens admitted in another interview together with Lennox), there are still many hitchslaps there. And one of them was regarding miracles, where Hitchens utilized Occam's Razor regarding the Christian belief of the virgin birth.

Hitchens: So if your wife is pregnant and you know it’s not you, the only alternative is that it’s the Holy Spirit? John Lennox: That’s a false [dichotomy]….. Hitchens: David…David Hume deals with this quite well, he says, “In the case of the laws of nature being suspended, you have to ask yourself, have they been suspended in my favour, or am I possibly under misapprehension?” I think it’s Thomas Paine who asked, “Which is more likely, that the laws of nature are suspended, or that a Jewish girl should tell a fib?” We have to grow out of this stuff, you know.

6. Destroying Frank Turek

During their rebuttal round on Christopher Hitchens versus Frank Turek debate, Hitchens said that telling a child about the existence of hell is an unpleasant and evil thing to say, and then Turek asked him where does evil come from. Hitchens needed only one word to take the Christian apologist down.

Hitchens: To tell a child, you, you go to this church, which means you’ll go to heaven, but your little playmates don’t go to that church, and therefore will go to hell, seems to me to be an unpleasant thing to be saying…. Turek: Yes, that is….. Hitchens: …maybe, I’m in a minority…. Turek: That could be an unpleasant thing, but how do you…. Hitchens: That is an evil thing to be saying… Turek: Let’s call it evil…. Hitchens: ….that only a religious person would dream of saying. Turek: Let’s call it evil. Where does evil come from? Hitchens: Religion.

5."A celestial North Korea"

During his debate on 2003 with his own Christian conservative brother Peter Hitchens regarding religion and the invasion of Iraq, Hitchens (the Christopher one) described why the belief in a personal God and the afterlife is a stupid, appalling, and undesirable false doctrine that only someone who wishes to a slave would wish to be true. He described heaven as like an Orwellian-esque dystopia, or in his words, a "celestial North Korea," where the divine Big Brother is always watching everyone both while they are awake and asleep.

Hitchens: Some people I know who are atheists, will say they wish they could believe it. Some people I know who are former believers say they wish they could have their old faith back, they miss it. I don't understand this at all. I think it's a...it's an excellent thing that there was no reason to believe, in the absurd propositions I just admitted, or rather briefly rehearsed to you. The main reason for this, I think is that it is a totalitarian belief. It is the wish to be a slave. It is the desire that there be an unalterable, unchallengeable, tyrannical authority who can convict you of thought crime while you are asleep, who can subject you, who must indeed subject you, to total surveillance around the clock every waking and sleeping minute of your life, I say, of your life, before you're born and, even worse and where the real fun begins, after you're dead. A celestial North Korea. Who wants this to be true? Who but a slave desires such a ghastly fate? I've been to North Korea. It has a dead man as its president, Kim Jong-Il is only head of the party and head of the army. He's not head of the government or the state. That office belongs to his deceased father, Kim Il-Sung. It's a necrocracy, a thanatocracy. It's one short of a trinity I might add. The son is the reincarnation of the father. It is the most revolting and utter and absolute and heartless tyranny the human species has ever evolved. But at least, you can fucking die and leave North Korea! Does the Quran...does the Quran or the Bible offer you that liberty? No! No! The tyranny, the misery, the utter ownership of your entire personality, the smashing of your individuality, only begins at the point of death. This is evil, this is a wicked preachment, so that's the first thing.

4. "Totalitarianism defined"

In the 2009 Hitchens vs. D'Souza debate in University of Colorado, while Christian conservative Dinesh D'Souza was speaking about morality in Christianity where a sin is being committed even if that's only in someone's mind, Hitchens interrupted him by saying that what D'Souza said is the very definition of totalitarianism, where someone can be punished by thought crime.

Dinesh D’Souza: In Christianity, you have the idea, for example, that morality is intentional. If you’ve contemplated the sin, Christ says, in a sense, you’ve committed it. In Islam, it's very different.... Hitchens: (interrupting) Thought crime. D’Souza: Hold on a second, the mullah..... Hitchens: Thought crime! Totalitarianism, again, thought crime! D’Souza: Oh, well, there is…. Hitchens: We know what you where thinking, and we can punish you for it. Totalitarianism defined.

3. Eviscerating Rabbi Harold Kushner about Circumcision

During his 2009 debate with Jewish conservative Rabbi Harold Kushner, Kushner joked after his son's circumcision. Hitchens seemed to be aggravated and pissed off on the joke as he regarded circumcision as genital mutilation and child abuse, and he said that the rabbi just proved his point that religion makes good people "say and do disgusting and wicked things."

Harold Kushner: Christopher, I’ve got to call you down on referring to circumcision as genital mutilation. My son cried more at his first haircut than he did at his bris. And statistically, the only long term effect that it seems to have on people is it increases their chance of winning a Nobel Prize. Hitchens: I can’t…uhmm, I can’t find the compulsory mutilation of the genitals of children a subject for humor in that way, will flip and seen that way. Maimonides says very plainly that it’s designed to repress sexual pleasure, to deprive us a male child as far as possible, of the opportunity of that. The full excision, not just the snip or the full mandatory covenant is fantastically painful, leads to trauma, leads to the dulling of the sexual relationship, and can be in itself a life-threatening at that moment. We have the records, I can show them to you, of hundreds and hundreds and hundreds in the United States, a boy babies who’ve died or…or had life-threatening infections as a result of this disgusting practice. That you, a person as humane as yourself, can sit here and be and think of that as a fit subject for humor, shows what I mean, religion makes morally normal people say and do disgusting and wicked thing, and you’ve just proved my point. Shame on you for saying what you just said! Shame on you for saying it about your own son! My god! Moderator: Let’s move on. Kushner: Yes, let’s…. Hitchens: (interrupting) What’s next? Cutting the labia of little girls? At least Judaism doesn’t do that. Moderator: This is a question….. Hitchens: (interrupting) What if a Muslim was to say to you just now, “My little girl cried more at her first haircut than when I cut off her clitoris.” What would you think of me if I was to say such a disgusting thing?! Moderator: Well… Hitchens: Remember, we are not talking about details here, we’re talking about whether religion makes people behave better or not! Moderator: Let’s give the Rabbi…I wanted to move on, but let’s give the rabbi a chance to respond to question, as it got pretty personal here, so… Kushner: Again, my experience in my own son, my own grandson, hundreds of congregants, has been that it’s not….nothing like you’re talking about. And that for whatever reason that this is become an issue for you, I just think that it’s excessive… Hitchens: What do you mean by that? What do you mean by that? Kushner: That I’m more personally… Hitchens: ‘Cause it’s on the tone of innuendo to this, let’s bring it on. Kushner: No, there’s no innuendo there, what I’m saying is… Hitchens: Sure? Kushner: I’ve lived through this personally and…. Hitchens: You’ve inflicted it, that’s what you’re saying? Kushner: I’ve been what? Hitchens: You’ve inflicted it or officiated, is that what you’re saying, isn’t it? Kushner: Well, officiated, yes. Inflicted, no. Hitchens: Hmmm… Kushner: Forget Maimonides, Maimonides has its hang-ups… Hitchens: I should forget Maimonides, since when do you say that? Kushner: Because on issues of sexuality, Maimonides has some very medieval ideas. I ran across the line in your book that Orthodox Jews have sex through a hole in a bedsheet. Do you know Orthodox Jews who told you they have sex that way? Hitchens: No, no, I say it is said that Orthodox Jews that they may do that. Moderator: Okay, gentlemen, I’m sorry to break this…. Hitchens: But that doesn’t make the…that’s a…that’s a Reform Jewish rumor about Orthodox Jews. Moderator: We have a lot of questions from the audience that I want to give others a chance. Hitchens: Genital mutilation is no joke.

2. "You owe me an apology"

In the question and answer session of 2003 Hitchens vs. Hitchens debates, an audience member confronted Christopher about how the godless Communists killed more people than the previous Christian Czars, and afterwards, Hitchens (the Christopher one) murdered him with his sharp wit and historical knowledge, by explaining why the Soviet communists are more religious than secular, and how Christian dogmatism caused bloodshed to Eastern Europe for many centuries. You know you're in a big trouble when Hitch just demanded you to apologize to him the moment after he just owned you.

Hitchens: You’re Joseph Stalin. You’ve taken over Russia. You’ve been educated in a seminary in Georgia, by the way. Up till 1917, for hundreds of years, hundreds of millions of Russians have been told that the head of the state is a god. That the Czar is above power, ordinary secular power, that’s he’s the head of the Russian Orthodox Church as well them. You shouldn’t be in the dictatorship business if you can’t take advantage of a well, a deep well of credulity and servility like that. It’s your golden opportunity. What does he do? Heresy trials….heresy trials, witch hunts, “miraculous” discoveries such as Lysenko’s biology, the worship of the leader “from whom all blessings flow,” as I describe North Korea, the most religious state I’ve ever seen. Mutatis mutandis, this would also applies to Mao’s China with the same background of superstition and servility. Now for there to be a fair test about this, you’d have to do the following, and no one I’ve ever debated with, has even tried it, so you’ll be the first: You find me a state or a society that threw off theocracy and threw off religion and said, “We adopt the teachings of Lucretius, and Democritus, and Galileo, and Spinoza, and Darwin, and Russell, and Jefferson, and Thomas Paine, and we make those what we teach our children. We make that scientific and rational humanism our teaching,” and you find me that state that did that and fell into tyranny and slavery and famine and torture, and then will be on a level playing field. As it is, all you’ve done is show that the idea of worship and the idea of credulity and the idea of servility and slavery to religion is a bad barrage in the first place. Audience Member: But none of the Czars and none of the Chinese kings…..none of these… Hitchens: By the way, the Russian Orthodox Church always stayed with Stalin, always stayed with Stalin. Audience Member: But they never killed 30% of the population. Hitchens: Who didn’t? Audience Member: The Russians never killed 30% of the population before the Communists took over. 20 or 30%. No Czar ever did that. Nope, no Christian Czar ever did any killing I’ve mentioned. Hitchens: Well, excuse me, they started the First World War, they started the pogroms, they brought "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" to…that was imported by Czarist secret policemen to the National Socialist Christian gangsters in Europe. How much do you think the export of Russian Orthodox anti-Semitism cost us in points of lives and war? And have you ever counted up what happened to the wars of Czarism started and carried on? And the persecutions and the famines, and the tortures, and the starvation, of the people who’ve just died of neglect? Come on! You want to do this accounting? I’m here, I’m really here for you. (applause) Hitchens: Or what the Serbian….or what the Serbian Orthodox and the Russian Orthodox have just done in the Balkans? From the most recent genocide we’ve in Europe, entirely done by…by Russian and Serbian Orthodox fascists and Catholic Croatian Ustaše, grinding the whole part of civilized Europe into nothingness and bloodshed for their filthy, stupid, medieval quarrels? How dare you say that any secularists, we have opposed this kind of barbaric stuff or on all fours with these creeps! Don’t, you should take it back you owe me an apology!

1. The Ultimate Hitchslap to the Roman Catholic Church

This has got to be the most brutal hitchslap of all time, that Hitchens had ever delivered in his whole life. In his 20 minute speech as one of the oppositions (together with British journalist and actor Stephen Fry) of the debate in Intelligence Squared on 2009, regarding of the question "Is the Catholic Church a Force for Good in the World?" against Archbishop John Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe, Hitchens exposed and utterly destroyed the whole institution of the Roman Catholic Church by demanding apologies to the atrocities that it was done throughout its whole history (like the Crusades, the Inquisition, alliance with totalitarian dictators, sex abuse scandal cover-ups, etc.), and its stupid and dangerous dogmas and doctrines that it imposed (like the banning of contraceptions, the doctrine of limbo, Christian anti-Semitism, the condemnation of homosexuals, etc.).

Hitchens: Now I’m sorry though to have begin by disagreeing with His Grace. If you’re going to be a serious grown-up person and appear to defend the Catholic Church in public in front of an educated and literate audience, you simply have to start by making a great number of heartfelt apologies and requests for contrition and forgiveness. Now you might ask, you’re fully entitled to ask, brothers and sisters, who am I to say that? Well, in the Jubilee Millennium year of 2000, the Vatican spokesman, Bishop Piero Marini said, explaining a whole sermon of apology given by His Holiness the Pope, they’re was supposed to cover the entire history of the Church in this Jubilee year. That’s our, quote Bishop Marini directly said, “Given the number of sins we’ve committed in the course of 20 centuries, reference to them must necessarily be rather summary.” Well, I think Bishop Marini had that just about right. I’ll have to be summary too. But I think he said just about the least of it. His Holiness on that occasion - it was March the 12th, 2000, if you wish to look it up - begged for forgiveness poured among some other things: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of the Jewish people, injustice towards women, that’s half the human race right there, and the forced conversion of indigenous people, especially in South America, and that followed a whole series of preceding apologies or apologies, I would say, of a kind, made by the late Pope John Paul, who troubles me not at all, to say, was a very impressive and serious human being. Before it, no less than 94 - 94, count them - public recognitions on his part of appalling crime and error and cruelty and stupidity and offences to the free intelligence, ranging from, I shall be summary, like Bishop Marini: the African slave trade, apologized for in 1995; the admission that Galileo was right about the relationship between the Sun and the earth and other orbs, which came in 1992; on my turn, and I won’t say it’s too easy to say better late than never, here I said it; to violence and torture - legalized torture - torture was legalized and institutionalized by the Roman pontiff during the Counter Reformation, that came in 1995; and for silence during Hitler’s Final Solution or Shoah, as well as, in 1999, coming in just under the Millennium Jubilee wire, an apology for the burning alive in the main square of Prague of the great Czech Protestant Jan Hus. Since that big Fiesta of forgiveness, that began in - culminated, I might say - in 2000, fiesta of forgiveness, fiestas of asking for it, the papacy is also must to be forgiven for the sack Constantinople and the massacre of Byzantium Christianity in April 1204, as part of the Fourth Crusade; the anathema on all Eastern Orthodox Christians as unbelievers, heretics, and people dwelling outside the health of the Church, was lifted only in 1964, I call your attention to that. He also expressed sorrow about the murder and forced conversion of Serbian Orthodox Christians in the Balkans during the Second World War. And it doesn’t end there, there are smaller but significant - equally significant - avowals of a very bad conscience. These have included regret for the rape and the torture of orphans and other children in Church-run schools in almost every country on earth, from Ireland to Australia; and I’m pleased to see that due reconsideration is now being given, and may in fact have been given, to the hellish - I chose the word carefully - doctrine of “limbo”, St. Augustine’s cruel and stupid disposal problem, solution to a non-existent problem, that is to say, the destination of the souls of unbaptized children. Up until now, Catholic parents have been taught that’s where their unbaptized children went, a form of torture that sometimes worse than the physical. Now it seems that this piece of Augustinian sadism is undergoing reconsideration as well. But remember, this is from a church that’s on the whole (undeciphered word). We stood wait a more direct admission, for example – I give some suggestions of my own while we’re at it – I would like them to take back the Concordat made with Adolf Hitler, the first treaty here, of a sign giving the church a monopoly over education in Germany in exchange for the dissolution of the Catholic center party to give the Nazi a clear run. I’d have apologized for the Lateran Pact with Mussolini, myself, also the first treaty was signed by that fascist dictator. I would also think I want to reconsider the fact that Father Tiso, head of the Nazi Puppet state of Slovakia, was a priest in Holy Orders; that the Croatian fascist puppet state, the Ustaše state of Ante Pavelić, was also operating under full clerical protection and disguise, as was the regime of General Franco and the dictator Antonio Salazar. I’d also want, I really think I would beg forgiveness for this, I don’t think the German Church should have asked Hitler’s birthday to be celebrated from the pulpit every year until he died. These are very serious matters, and they’re not to be laughed off by the references to the occasional work of Catholic charities. But I draw your attention not just to the apologies, ladies and gentlemen, but to the evasive and euphemistic form that they take. Joseph Ratzinger, the current Pope, considered by some, considered by Catholics to be the Vicar of Christ on Earth, says of Indians - of the Indian – were massacred in the course of conversion in Brazil, after the apology had been made to them, he said “Nonetheless, it must be remembered that before we came to convert them, they were silently awaiting their arrival of the church.” I don’t think that’s a very genuine kind of apology to you. In his comment, one of the few he’s made on the institutionalization of rape and torture and maltreatment of children in Catholic institutions, he said “It’s a very severe crisis which involves us,” he said, in the following: “in the need for applying to these victims the most loving, pastoral care.” Well I’m sorry, they’ve already had that! And to say that this is the response to be laid upon you, by the horrific admission that you’ve already had to make is not accepting responsibility in any adult sense. When I say child abuse was institutional, how dare I say so? How can I prove it? How could I prove such a thing? Well, I’ll ask His Grace, and I’ll ask Widdecombe, where is Cardinal Bernard Law now? Where is he? Where is the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston? Whose resignation was indignantly demanded, finally, by 50 members of the church, and by the whole laity of Massachusetts; who also demanded his prosecution for the promotion, and protection, and covering up, and apology for, and defense of people whose crimes against children, are too revolting to specify. And he’s not in the jurisdiction of Massachusetts now, as perhaps you know. He’s the Supreme Vicar of the Church of Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome, personally appointed by the Pope to that as well as many other important sinecures. And in 2005, this man, a fugitive from justice and from complicity in the filthiest crime, that it’s possible for human beings to imagine was one of those voting in Conclave to decide who the next Vicar of Christ on earth will be. I don’t know, I think…I think I’d like to hear a bit more shame about this, and see a bit more confrontation with the…with the reality of the business. Now this is a serious question, as I’ve said, and when it can very often rightly in my opinion, attacks the climate of moral relativism, and if anything goes that can very well, be the handmaiden of post-modernists’ hedonistic culture, I very often I’m glad that she points these thing out. But the rape and torture of children is not something to be relativized. It’s not something to be excused as a few bad priests. It’s certainly not to be excused by the hideously false claim made by some Catholic conservatives that this wouldn’t have happened If queers hadn’t been allowed into the church. Sorry to say that queer dimming the church is an old story too. And it’s worse, it’s much worse than pornography and its much worse than bad language on TV, and it’s the crime that cries out for punishment. It’s the thing that if we were accused of on this side of the house, we would die rather than admit, and if we were guilty of it, would kill ourselves. And it’s the one thing the church has decided to excuse itself for under this papacy. The same euphemism comes, in the term some Christians – that is used in all apologies about the Crusades, inquisitions, the anti-Semitic pogroms, and all the rest of it – some Christians fell into error, some Christians allow themselves to be deceived in this way and to act against the gospel, well, anti-Semitism was preached as an official doctrine of the Church until 1964. Do you think that might have something to do with public opinion in Austria, and Bavaria, and Poland, and Lithuania? The Jewish people were accused collectively, as a people, of deicide, of the crime of the murder of God, in the figure of Jesus of Nazareth. That anathema on them was not lifted until 1964, well after the perpetrators of the Holocaust had stood that in secular courts, and been rightly punished for their actions. How can this church say it has any moral superiority? It has difficulty catching up to what ordinary people regard as common moral and ethical sense, and it’s still can’t make itself apologize properly. And I’ll tell you why. Because – and I’ll quote again from the cyclicals – it is said of the Crusades, of the complicity with the Holocaust, over the political and diplomatic alliance with fascism, of all of these things, it is said, “Well, violence was committed, but,” I’ll stress this or underline it, I’ll quote directly, “In the service of the truth.” So how is an apology possible? How’s any understanding or undertaking or firm purpose of amendment to be allowed, when the original sin, so to say, the “radix malorum,” the “fons et origo,” the problem in the first place, is the belief of the part of this Church, that it does possess a truth that we don’t have, and it does have a God-given right, a Word, a Mandate of Heaven, to tell other people what to do, not just in their public, but in their private lives. And it’s all that has changed so that fantastic and sinister and non-founded claim is changed, these crimes will go on repeating themselves being partially denied, partially admitted when it’s too late to do anything else, and covered up. Behind all these crimes and miseries, is the denial of what we on this side of the house affirmed - which is that the only little candle of hope that our species does possess, our poor bear-forked primate mammalian species of whom you have too such splendid examples on this house, I’m not bad on the other tonight – is the unfettered intelligence, the method of free inquiry and philosophy and in science, and the refusal to admit that anyone person can tell you not to do that. It’s the one thing, I might say I think is if not sacrosanct or sacred, is, shall we say, essential, and the church has always stood and still stands against it. Now in the little time remaining to me, I’ll just propose a few more apologies that we might hope to hear in the immediate future. There’ll come a time, when the church will issue apologies, and explanations, and half-baked appeals for forgiveness for things it’s still doing. The readmission as a bishop of Roger Williamson, a member of Marcel Lefebvre’s fanatical, hysterical, breakaway sect so-called Society of St. Pius X. Roger Williamson found hiding in a reactionary quasi-fascistic establishment in Argentina, has long been a believer that – I’ll put this shortly – that the Holocaust did not occur but the Jews did kill Christ. In otherwise, in other words, genocide no, deicide, yes. He was quite rightly excommunicated some years ago, along with several other members of his ratbag organization. But Joseph Ratzinger has invited him back into the communion, because to him, having this man, this liar, this fraud, this racist in the church is more important because it’s church unity than the things that he said and done and continues to stand for. Is this not a crying scandal? I think that there will be an apology for what happened in Rwanda, the most Catholic country in Africa, one of the most Catholic country in the world, where priests and nuns and bishops are on trial, for inciting from their pulpits and on the Church’s radio stations and newspapers, the massacre of their brothers and sisters, and the papacy was silent on this appalling occasion, and everyone in Rwanda knows it, and there hasn’t yet been a properly written apology for that disgrace. Staying in Africa, I think it will one day be admitted with shame that it might have been in error to say that AIDS is bad as a disease, very bad, but not quite as bad as condoms are bad, or not as immoral in the same way. I say it in the presence of His Grace, and I say it to his face, the teachings of his church are responsible for the death and suffering and misery of his brother and sister Africans, and he should apologize for it, he should show some shame. For condemning my friend Stephen Fry for his nature, for saying “you couldn’t be a member of our church, you’re born in sin!” There’s a revolting piece of casuistry that sometimes offered on this point, “Yeah, we hate the sin, only we love the sinner.” Stephen is, I’m sorry to say, not quite like other girls. It’s his nature! Actually, he’s like other girls in that he’s when I last checked absolutely boy mad. He’s not being condemned for what he does, he’s being condemned for what he is! You’re a child made in the image of God – “oh no, you’re not, you’re a faggot! And you can’t join our church and you can’t go to heaven!” This is disgraceful, it’s inhuman, it’s obscene, and it comes from a clutch of hysterical, sinister virgins, who’ve already betrayed their charge in the children of their own church! For shame! For shame! And finally, under this Pope as if it wasn’t bad enough, to try and restore the Latin Mass to gratify the mad fascistic followers of Archbishop Lefebvre, to begin again, to offer a remission of sin, as carnal as Bishop Ratzinger, the Pope - I’ll coin the Pope, for heaven’s sake – wants to do. If you come to a Catholic youth festival in Sydney, Australia, where I just was, you’ll get a certain remission from purgatory or hell, and maybe temporary if you come a lot and you give a lot, you’ll get, possibly, permanent remission from the eternal punishment, that they don’t know any more about than you and I do. This is the sale of indulgences, blatantly, openly, it’s the same temptation that was offered to those who set off on the Fourth Crusade that’s just been apologized for, and killed all the Jews of Europe on their way, sack Byzantine Christianity when they got to Constantinople, and then went on to massacre of Arbs and Muslims! They were offered paradise if they died committing these terrible crimes against humanity. But the….if you see what I mean therefore, the stimulus to crime, the impetus to crime, the belief in certainty, the belief that a divine warrant entitles you to do whatever you like, is the sin that must be…that must be cancelled. There must be a kneel that must somehow be apologized for. I don’t wish any ill on any fellow primate or mammal of mine, even if this private or mammal claims to be a primary possession of a secret that’s denied to me. I can forgive even that because I live in a country where their brain doesn’t run, their rig doesn’t apply. And they can’t burn me and silence me and censor me, any more than they can tell my wife she can’t use contraception, or any more they can really tell Stephen that he’s a beast. So, I don’t at all look forward to the death of Joseph Ratzinger, I don’t, or any other bloke, not really, except for one tiny reason which I ought to confess and share with you. When he dies, there’s quite a long interval till the conclave can meet – maybe Cardinal will still be on it – so pick another Pope. Sometimes it goes on for months till they get the white smoke. And for that whole time, that whole interval—it is a delicious, lucid interlude—there isn’t anyone on Earth who claims to be infallible. Isn’t that nice? All I think, all I want to propose in closing is this: that if the human species is to rise to the full height that’s demanded by its dignity, and by its intelligence, we must all of us move to a state of affairs, where that condition is permanent, and I think we should get on with it. Okay, thank you for having me.